Future of EMR's 158s

[Adam Evans]

With the splitting of the Liverpool to Norwich route but for EMR to retain the Liverpool to Nottingham section (originally destined to be transferred to TPE). Does anyone know what the future holds for EMR's 158s given that they were supposed to be getting rid of them and replacing all of their Regional rolling stock with 170s. Surely they won't have enough rolling stock available to run a full service now that they've been tasked with keeping the Liverpool to Nottingham section. Does anyone know what the latest plan is for the route?

 

[ChrisC]

With the splitting of the Liverpool to Norwich route but for EMR to retain the Liverpool to Nottingham section (originally destined to be transferred to TPE). Does anyone know what the future holds for EMR's 158s given that they were supposed to be getting rid of them and replacing all of their Regional rolling stock with 170s. Surely they won't have enough rolling stock available to run a full service now that they've been tasked with keeping the Liverpool to Nottingham section. Does anyone know what the latest plan is for the route?

The last I heard is that the route is now not going to be split but remaining as it is with EMR retaining the 158’s for the full Liverpool to Norwich route. Others may know more but there has been talk of some of them being reformed into 3 carriage units. I’ve also read that they may be due to be refurbished, but seeing the dreadful state of some of the 170’s EMR have inherited, in comparison they are not that bad.

 

[222001]

All 158s to be retained and refurbished as part of continuing to run Nottingham to Liverpool.

 

[Adam Evans]

All 158s to be retained and refurbished as part of continuing to run Nottingham to Liverpool.

Ah, that's good to know if it is indeed happening. Retention and refurbishment of the 158's is my personal preferred option.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Nov 2022 ==

The last I heard is that the route is now not going to be split but remaining as it is with EMR retaining the 158’s for the full Liverpool to Norwich route.

Interesting if they've done a last minute U-turn given that they seemed dead set on splitting it for years.

Others may know more but there has been talk of some of them being reformed into 3 carriage units.

If some are to be reformed into 3-cars then I would hope that they are doubled up to another 2-car set at least for the Nottingham to Liverpool section as the current 4-car set up is often filled to capacity and so three coaches alone probably wouldn't be enough. The 170s are also a step down in terms of seat capacity overall.

I’ve also read that they may be due to be refurbished, but seeing the dreadful state of some of the 170’s EMR have inherited, in comparison they are not that bad.

Yeah, so I've heard and seen. The current 158s are still pleasant enough even if they do look a bit tired.

 

[dk1]

If some are to be reformed into 3-cars then I would hope that they are doubled up to another 2-car set at least for the Nottingham to Liverpool section as the current 4-car set up is often filled to capacity and so three coaches alone probably wouldn't be enough. The 170s are also a step down in terms of seat capacity overall.

Plan mentioned by EMR in last month Modern Railways was for 5-car operation West of Nottingham if possible. The ideal solution would be for the 3-cars to continue to/from Norwich providing much needed extra capacity East of Peterborough.

 

[Benjaminmorgan]

Will it be 158 Liverpool Lime Street to Nottingham 170 Nottingham to Norwich section?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Will it be 158 Liverpool Lime Street to Nottingham

2x reformed 3-158 providing six car services, according to informed rumours on here, but nothing concrete mind you.

 

[chubs]

2x reformed 3-158 providing six car services, according to informed rumours on here, but nothing concrete mind you.

If you're going to do that why bother reforming them at all?

 

[D365]

If you're going to do that why bother reforming them at all?

For running three car trains east of Nottingham.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

For running three car trains east of Nottingham.

Which are badly needed to be fair.

 

[dk1]

Which are badly needed to be fair.

There are now so many F&S reports of services on the Eastern stretch. Shame some catering can’t be restored at least as far as Ely on selected trains.

 

[louis97]

2x reformed 3-158 providing six car services, according to informed rumours on here, but nothing concrete mind you.

Five car length is what is being considered as platform lengths don't allow for six cars. Assume the three car in that formation would then continue to Norwich.

 

[dk1]

Five car length is what is being considered as platform lengths don't allow for six cars. Assume the three car in that formation would then continue to Norwich.

That would be the most sensible option. Norwich-Liverpool has so much potential with extra capacity. So few advance deals available & there has been no advertising or promotion of the route in East Anglia in close on 15 years.

 

[fgwrich]

Plan mentioned by EMR in last month Modern Railways was for 5-car operation West of Nottingham if possible. The ideal solution would be for the 3-cars to continue to/from Norwich providing much needed extra capacity East of Peterborough.

If only EMT didn't trade the centre coaches from those ex TPE 158s several years back for 153s from Northern!

 

[TheBigD]

EMR's have 26 x 2 car 158s.

If you reform 12 in to 8 x 3 car that leaves 14 for the rest of the route. This allows 5 car working west of Nottingham (7 x 3 car required) and 2 car working east of Nottingham (12 x 2 car required).
Eg : 2+3 from Liverpool, 2 from Nottingham after the 3 car is detached.

You would need around 14 x 3 car and 8 x 2 car for 3 car east of Nottingham and 5 car west of Nottingham. EMR would need 29 x 158s to allow this to happen, reformed to 14 x 3 and 8 x 2.

There are (3 I think) different engined versions of the 158 with EMR which would limit how many can be reformed in to 3 car units.

If you reform more in to 3 car units you will then need some 170s to fill in. As 170s were planned for the Nottingham-Norwich section anyway this shouldnt be a problem, assuming they can run 158+170 combinations, which happened daily back in Central Trains days.

I don't know or have any insider knowledge on what the final plans are or how many will be reformed to 3 car.

Edit - the 158s are split between Porterbrook and Angel Trains leased units which may also complicate reforming in to 3 cars.

 

[py_megapixel]

My guess is that - at least in the short term - 0 will be reformed and EMR will be told to make do with 2-car sets. If we're lucky, we might get some 5-car 158+170 formations at some point.

 

[dk1]

If only EMT didn't trade the centre coaches from those ex TPE 158s several years back for 153s from Northern!

Ahh yes of course but no good looking back. I’ll never understand such things.

 

[Ribbleman]

Ah, that's good to know if it is indeed happening. Retention and refurbishment of the 158's is my personal preferred option.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Nov 2022 ==


Interesting if they've done a last minute U-turn given that they seemed dead set on splitting it for years.

If some are to be reformed into 3-cars then I would hope that they are doubled up to another 2-car set at least for the Nottingham to Liverpool section as the current 4-car set up is often filled to capacity and so three coaches alone probably wouldn't be enough. The 170s are also a step down in terms of seat capacity overall.

Yeah, so I've heard and seen. The current 158s are still pleasant enough even if they do look a bit tired.

Pleasant enough if the air conditioning is working. Most unpleasant on too many occasions in warm weather. The same goes for Northern’s sets. If these units are to have a future of 10 years or more then it is high time that the ROSCOS grasped the nettle and as part of a general refurbishment, installed a system that works reliably.

 

[tbtc]

There are lots of DMUs that could run this, given the various 158s/ 168s/ 170s/ 175s etc out there, as well as TPE who aren’t exactly using many of their 185/ 802/ Mk5 sets so wouldn’t be surprised if they have some taken off them before too long…

…the main concern for me is that the Liverpool to Nottingham* trains are the safe stock as the Cleethorpes services through the Hope Valley, given that the plan is for them to also run Liverpool to Sheffield - I want one Operator running these two services - I think that we’d have much better reliability/focus if they were together with the same traction and staff similarly able to work a westbound service ex-Cleethorpes but head east in charge of a Nottingham bound service (rather than things being turned early because there’s not enough recovery/ one operator giving up on the Hope Valley route without additional capacity being resourced for the other service

That could be both in the hands of any of three TOCs (EMR/ Northern/ TPE) and any one of several “middle distance” DMU fleets, just as long as we get a consistent / coordinated service -rather than what we have now where nobody seems to be in control and frankly it feels like the route over the Hope Valley is low on the priority list of EMR (doesn’t tend to stop in actual East Midlands much after leaving Chesterfield, isn’t a lucrative London service either) or TPE (who are focused on the main route through Huddersfield, but also seem to enjoy undercutting Avanti on the WCML)

Maybe the ideal would be six coach 185s from Liverpool to Nottingham/ Doncaster and single units confronting east of there, but it feels a bit like Cluedo, going through the list of TOCs and rolling stock that could be in the “envelope”

(* - I’m unfussed if they all go to Norwich too, there are pros and cons, not trying to get into an argument)

 

[Bevan Price]

My guess is that - at least in the short term - 0 will be reformed and EMR will be told to make do with 2-car sets. If we're lucky, we might get some 5-car 158+170 formations at some point.

Good idea. Class 158 + 170 formations did sometimes reach Liverpool in the Central Trains period.

 

[dosxuk]

Interesting if they've done a last minute U-turn given that they seemed dead set on splitting it for years.

It's the DfT who've been wanting to split it all that time, going back to the Central Trains days at least. Every couple of years they would do a consultation saying it would be the best thing ever to split it, and every couple of years they would struggle to find anyone who would agree, and so the split would be cancelled.

It's only on the introduction of EMR where they declared that the northern half was going to be sent to another franchise that they saw some limited support from the Liverpool / Manchester authorities who wanted done stability for the routes through Oxford Road / Piccadilly.

 

[LowLevel]

There are lots of DMUs that could run this, given the various 158s/ 168s/ 170s/ 175s etc out there, as well as TPE who aren’t exactly using many of their 185/ 802/ Mk5 sets so wouldn’t be surprised if they have some taken off them before too long…

…the main concern for me is that the Liverpool to Nottingham* trains are the safe stock as the Cleethorpes services through the Hope Valley, given that the plan is for them to also run Liverpool to Sheffield - I want one Operator running these two services - I think that we’d have much better reliability/focus if they were together with the same traction and staff similarly able to work a westbound service ex-Cleethorpes but head east in charge of a Nottingham bound service (rather than things being turned early because there’s not enough recovery/ one operator giving up on the Hope Valley route without additional capacity being resourced for the other service

That could be both in the hands of any of three TOCs (EMR/ Northern/ TPE) and any one of several “middle distance” DMU fleets, just as long as we get a consistent / coordinated service -rather than what we have now where nobody seems to be in control and frankly it feels like the route over the Hope Valley is low on the priority list of EMR (doesn’t tend to stop in actual East Midlands much after leaving Chesterfield, isn’t a lucrative London service either) or TPE (who are focused on the main route through Huddersfield, but also seem to enjoy undercutting Avanti on the WCML)

Maybe the ideal would be six coach 185s from Liverpool to Nottingham/ Doncaster and single units confronting east of there, but it feels a bit like Cluedo, going through the list of TOCs and rolling stock that could be in the “envelope”

(* - I’m unfussed if they all go to Norwich too, there are pros and cons, not trying to get into an argument)

Or to put it another way, if it was all TPE right now, both routes would be totally knackered, rather than one being totally knackered and another being temperamental in terms of formations.

 

[RailWonderer]

And are operations teams ever consulted? Norwich - P'boro has heavy footfall for East Anglian passengers travelling up north and to Scotland and the Sheffield - Manchester - Liverpool flow is crucial, especially with TPE not getting their act together. These local or mid distance flows are far more important than the through route itself, where it is quicker to go via London for Norwich - Liverpool and even Manchester. All EMR is doing (and by extention the DfT) is providing a substandard service for two different regions of passengers where footfall is heavy in both.

Nobody in the Hope Valley wants their service cancelled or grossly delayed for a minor failure in Norwich where the train loses its path and the delay minutes rack up, or even for a train fault. Splitting makes most sense, and I have to imagine only industry politics is keeping the route joined up.

 

[dk1]

And are operations teams ever consulted? Norwich - P'boro has heavy footfall for East Anglian passengers travelling up north and to Scotland and the Sheffield - Manchester - Liverpool flow is crucial, especially with TPE not getting their act together. These local or mid distance flows are far more important than the through route itself, where it is quicker to go via London for Norwich - Liverpool and even Manchester. All EMR is doing (and by extention the DfT) is providing a substandard service for two different regions of passengers where footfall is heavy in both.

Nobody in the Hope Valley wants their service cancelled or grossly delayed for a minor failure in Norwich where the train loses its path and the delay minutes rack up, or even for a train fault. Splitting makes most sense, and I have to imagine only industry politics is keeping the route joined up.

I have always disagreed this point because it offers so much more. Ely to Sheffield, Warrington to Peterborough or Manchester to Grantham as a small example & all the onward connections with one rather than two changes from the stations they offer. Delays can happen anywhere it’s just unfortunate. Long May it continue as a direct route.

 

[dosxuk]

And are operations teams ever consulted?

Every single time the split has gone out for consultation, it's been roundly rejected by passenger groups, councils, local transport authorities, MPs, and even the operators and franchise bidders. While it may be simpler for the timetable planners if the route was split, pretty much nobody else agrees.

Norwich - P'boro has heavy footfall for East Anglian passengers travelling up north and to Scotland and the Sheffield - Manchester - Liverpool flow is crucial, especially with TPE not getting their act together. These local or mid distance flows are far more important than the through route itself, where it is quicker to go via London for Norwich - Liverpool and even Manchester. All EMR is doing (and by extention the DfT) is providing a substandard service for two different regions of passengers where footfall is heavy in both.

You're forgetting about the long established local and mid distance flows which cross Nottingham, or the desire that passengers have for direct services, especially over a complicated connection in London. In particular there has always been a healthy flow between Norwich and Sheffield, and Peterborough and Manchester. Peterborough / Ely for their connections to Stansted are also drivers for traffic from beyond Nottingham.

Nobody in the Hope Valley wants their service cancelled or grossly delayed for a minor failure in Norwich where the train loses its path and the delay minutes rack up, or even for a train fault. Splitting makes most sense, and I have to imagine only industry politics is keeping the route joined up.

The stock splitting/joining at Nottingham introduced under EMT was a success in this matter, as a major delay on the east side meant that the service could be restarted at Nottingham right time. No such luck going the other way when the castlefield corridor congestion would inevitably be carried all the way to Norwich. Not sure why passengers in the Hope Valley would be complaining anyway, when virtually no Liverpool-Norwich services call there.

 

[RailWonderer]

Every single time the split has gone out for consultation, it's been roundly rejected by passenger groups, councils, local transport authorities, MPs, and even the operators and franchise bidders. While it may be simpler for the timetable planners if the route was split, pretty much nobody else agrees.



You're forgetting about the long established local and mid distance flows which cross Nottingham, or the desire that passengers have for direct services, especially over a complicated connection in London. In particular there has always been a healthy flow between Norwich and Sheffield, and Peterborough and Manchester. Peterborough / Ely for their connections to Stansted are also drivers for traffic from beyond Nottingham.



The stock splitting/joining at Nottingham introduced under EMT was a success in this matter, as a major delay on the east side meant that the service could be restarted at Nottingham right time. No such luck going the other way when the castlefield corridor congestion would inevitably be carried all the way to Norwich. Not sure why passengers in the Hope Valley would be complaining anyway, when virtually no Liverpool-Norwich services call there.

Two EMRs per day do call at Chinley and Hazel Grove and another at all stations in the morning, for example: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:P53255/2022-11-02#allox_id=0

Though I meant Manchester and Sheffield which are on either side. A simple change at Nottingham would be worth it to upkeep reliability is all I was saying.

 

[dk1]

Two EMRs per day do call at Chinley and Hazel Grove and another at all stations in the morning, for example: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:P53255/2022-11-02#allox_id=0

Though I meant Manchester and Sheffield which are on either side. A simple change at Nottingham would be worth it to upkeep reliability is all I was saying.

Changes at Nottingham are rarely simple with the station layout as it is & the East bound services often out on a windswept limb. Tight connections here have always been quite a trial.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The stock splitting/joining at Nottingham introduced under EMT was a success in this matter, as a major delay on the east side meant that the service could be restarted at Nottingham right time. No such luck going the other way when the castlefield corridor congestion would inevitably be carried all the way to Norwich. Not sure why passengers in the Hope Valley would be complaining anyway, when virtually no Liverpool-Norwich services call there.

Wasn't there talk not too long ago about scrapping the Liverpool end, and instead terminating in Piccadilly main shed to avoid the Castlefield issue? What happened to that idea in the end? I'd got it in my head that the changes to TPE's Cleethorpes (running through to Liverpool instead of the airport) were to compensate for the loss of the EMR service.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Wasn't there talk not too long ago about scrapping the Liverpool end, and instead terminating in Piccadilly main shed to avoid the Castlefield issue? What happened to that idea in the end? I'd got it in my head that the changes to TPE's Cleethorpes (running through to Liverpool instead of the airport) were to compensate for the loss of the EMR service.

They're to compensate for the loss of Northern's semi-fast service between the Airport and Lime Street; the one ran with 195s.

 

[tbtc]

Or to put it another way, if it was all TPE right now, both routes would be totally knackered, rather than one being totally knackered and another being temperamental in terms of formations.

Yeah, just as if it was all TPE right now then it wouldn’t matter if EMR had a shortage of stock/staff - there’s an element of swings and roundabouts - bottom line is that we surely can’t keep running parallel hourly services over the same hundred and fifty mile round trip west of Sheffield, with different types of trains that the staff on board the other service can’t be allocated to, meaning either tiny or huge waits at Lime Street, once a westbound service becomes just slightly late then it becomes Terminated at Piccadilly instead because by the time it gets to Merseyside it’ll not be able to meet its own eastbound path - guaranteed disruption, rather than everything stepping back an extra thirty minutes so that there’s sufficient time to lay over without occupying a platform in Liverpool for effectively an hour

I have always disagreed this point because it offers so much more. Ely to Sheffield, Warrington to Peterborough or Manchester to Grantham as a small example & all the onward connections with one rather than two changes from the stations they offer. Delays can happen anywhere it’s just unfortunate. Long May it continue as a direct route.

Genuinely, what demand is there from Warrington to Peterborough? Or are you just listing two stops and assuming that there must Be a lot of demand between them?

I’m not saying there’s “no” demand, of course there’ll sometimes be someone who genuinely needs to get between two far flung places that coincidentally have some direct trains, but we can’t run a national network for journeys that a handful of people make annually

I certainly know at least three people so moved from East Anglia to Sheffield around twenty years ago as Norwich Union/Aviva opened some big offices here and needed experienced staff to train the Yorkshire natives, but it’s not like they make the journey back to see their parents on a daily - or even monthly - basis - I wouldn’t base revenue of a dozen DMUs a day on a handful of people making a handful of journeys a year

Run a good service each side of the East Midlands and if it’s worth linking them to then so be it but similarly if it makes more sense with Norwich trains terminating in Nottingham or Stoke or Matlock then that’ll benefit a tiny number/ inconvenience a tiny number/ be of no relevance to 99% of the population

Wasn't there talk not too long ago about scrapping the Liverpool end, and instead terminating in Piccadilly main shed to avoid the Castlefield issue? What happened to that idea in the end? I'd got it in my head that the changes to TPE's Cleethorpes (running through to Liverpool instead of the airport) were to compensate for the loss of the EMR service.

They're to compensate for the loss of Northern's semi-fast service between the Airport and Lime Street; the one ran with 195s.

Re the above two comments, the plan was for a half hourly service from Sheffield to Liverpool (i.e. hourly on the existing ex Nottingham service plus diversion of the hourly ex Cleethorpes - which is why I want them run by the same contact with the same stock and staff able to inter-work)

even if they are set up so that a westbound ex Cleethorpes is planned to return to the north east Lincolnshire coast when it’s heading back eastbound, it would make things A LOT easier if there was flexibility for it to drop back thirty minutes and form the subsequent Liverpool - Nottingham service…

…because two different contractors running two different services the 150-ish mile round trip from Sheffield to Liverpool and back, with staff unable to deputise for the other hourly departure and haven’t been trained in those different units is surely asking for trouble?

(Sensible move to combine Cleethorpes - Airport and Airport - Liverpool into a single service though, frees up a couple of scarce DMUs/ removes the one remaining reversal from the main Piccadilly shed onto the Styall line/ Airport branch had nine per hour and an average passenger count of thirty something, so cutting it down by two/hour still leaves plenty of seats for Airport passengers - Liverpool retains an hourly Airport service on the Chat Moss EMU/ Warrington gets the hourly ex-Llandudno service to the Airport/ plenty of same platform changes per hour on Oxford Road corridor)